Incorporating Partners in Flight Priorities into
State Agency Operational Plans:
Development of a Management System for Wetland Passerines1
Thomas P. Hodgman2
________________________________________
Abstract
State agencies are often considered the prime avenues for
implementation of Partners in Flight (PIF) bird conservation plans. Yet, such agencies already have in place a
planning structure, which allows for dispersal of Federal
Aid funds and guides management actions. Consequently,
superimposing additional planning frameworks (e.g., PIF
bird conservation plans) on state agencies may be met
with resistance. Maine has successfully overcome these
obstacles through an integrated planning approach that
uses stakeholder input to set objectives, meets agency
commitments under Federal Aid, and culminates in a
management system which directs research, management,
and outreach activities for species recognized as high
priority by PIF. This approach could easily be adapted by
other states to better integrate PIF conservation plans into
agency operations, and furthermore, offers potential for
including public input into development and implementation of state comprehensive wildlife conservation plans.
Key words: assessment, implementation, planning,
prioritization, public input, stakeholders.
Introduction
Few persons, if any, back in 1992 thought that implementing conservation programs for landbirds would be
simple. Indeed, several authors (Carter et al. 2000, Droege
1993, Smith et al. 1993, Therres 1993) have described
some of the various complexities. As a logical consequence, planning has been a featured activity of PIF, since
at least 1995, and Donovan et al. (1999) and Mueller et al.
(1999) described model approaches toward setting
objectives for bird conservation. Donovan et al. (1999)
emphasized the need for coordination among local and
regional managers. Mueller et al. (1999) appear to have
built a coalition of agencies and organizations to set
population and habitat objectives for the Mississippi
__________
1
A version of this paper was presented at the Third International Partners in Flight Conference, March 20-24, 2002,
Asilomar Conference Grounds, California.
2
Bird Group, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife,
650 State St. Bangor, ME 04401. E-mail: tom.hodgman@
state.me.us.
Alluvial Valley. Yet, as of 2002 PIF lacked both the
necessary funding and the “foot soldiers” to carry out its
work. However, PIF has well documented the needs for
bird conservation in its bird conservation plans that,
together with a broader partner base, could overcome
these limitations.
One of the greatest strengths of PIF has been the
development of the bird conservation plans, documents
that chart the course for putting landbird conservation on
the ground. The power of these plans is in their technical
foundations, notably, the species assessment database
used to generate the priority species pools. An important
weakness, at least for some plans, may be the lack of
specific detail in the implementation objectives and the
failure to identify who will actually carry out this work. It
has been assumed (correctly), that state agencies should
take on the primary role of implementing the plans.
However, state conservation agencies already employ
detailed plans (some more so than others) to direct staff
time and expenditures toward wildlife management
activities. Additional plans, that may have differing
objectives, can be interpreted as unfunded mandates from
an outside organization. These can unfortunately detract
from agency commitment, building partnerships, and
ultimately can form an impediment to landbird conservation. At a time when agencies are developing comprehensive wildlife conservation plans while simultaneously
exploring how to include public input into conservation
decision-making, an approach that helps to accomplish
these would be useful.
The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
(MDIFW) uses a system of stakeholder meetings to set
the goals and objectives for state-based wildlife conservation programs. This agency has used this approach
extensively for game species and nongame/threatened and
endangered species alike. The basic concept was outlined
by Anderson and Hurley (1980), but has been modified
over time. The MDIFW began to address conservation of
passerines in the late 1990s with a report assessing the
populations and habitats of over 100 species (Hodgman
1998). That assessment, together with other supporting
materials (e.g., PIF plans and priority lists), has been used
to launch a series of stakeholder meetings to set statebased conservation objectives for five habitat-based
groups of passerines. With these objectives, I began to
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 2005
213
Achieving Implementation via State Agencies - Hodgman
focus on devising conservation strategies for songbirds in
Maine. The results of these efforts were assembled in a
management system that formed the first step toward
comprehensive passerine conservation taken by MDIFW.
For the purpose of this report, I define a “management
system” as a “planning process that uses public input to
set agency objectives for the conservation of species and
their habitats.” Matula (1988) first described the steps in a
management system from which MDIFW decides which
and documents how management actions will be taken for
a given species. In brief, a management system begins
with consensus-driven objectives, documents the
decision-making process including data inputs, identifies
the management actions (e.g., PR Jobs [conservation
programs carried out by state agencies with approval and
financial support of Federal Aid]) necessary to accomplish
conservation objectives, and provides for annual
monitoring of the progress of the system. This approach
meets state commitments under the Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act and provides a detailed flowchart
of the steps involved in implementation.
In this report, I describe a planning framework that can
effectively integrate PIF priorities at the state agency level
and give examples (in case-study format) from an actual
management system designed for wetland-associated
passerines. I hope to provide a model approach that allows
the PIF plans and their objectives to be better integrated
into existing state programs or to be included in comprehensive wildlife conservation plans.
The Management System Process
Stakeholders Set Goals and Objectives
To be effective, stakeholder groups need to represent
the overall community of bird enthusiasts, not merely
technical experts. Streamlining this process to include
only a subset of the overall community is possible but
may lack the breadth of consensus desired. The stakeholder group that I worked with, a subset of the Maine
PIF Working Group, was a combination of technical
experts, representatives of conservation NGOs, and
local birders.
Each stakeholder should begin the process with the
same basic understanding of the problem, including
species status, current conservation efforts, and other
pertinent information. To accomplish this, I found
several sources of information useful, including PIF
national-level plan (Pashley et al. 2000), the AOU
Conservation Reports (Biessinger et al. 2000, Carter et
al. 2000), PIF bird conservation plans, PIF Species
Assessment Database, and current Breeding Bird
Survey (BBS) trends.
Case study
To initiate discussion, stakeholders were asked to
itemize their concerns for a species/habitat suite, from
which objectives could be set. Participants listed the
following issues and concerns for the conservation of
wetland passerines:
x Cumulative loss and degradation of wetlands, especially freshwater systems
x Impacts to riparian habitat, especially buffers in
coastal areas and along rivers and streams
x Increases in invasive plants
x Recreational use of wetlands (personal watercraft
and all terrain vehicles)
x Environmental contaminants
x Water level fluctuations/manipulations
x Forestry practices that alter habitat for long periods
or enhance habitat for competitors/predators
x Nuisance situations (damage to agricultural crops,
collision with aircraft)
x Outreach needed to increase knowledge and understanding
With these concerns identified, stakeholders drafted an
overall goal and several specific conservation objectives for this group of species. The goal is generalized,
intended to guide the vision of the stakeholders. The
objectives, however, are concise and measurable, attempt to minimize uncertainty, and were determined by
stakeholders, not the agency.
Goal: Maintain the diversity and abundance of wetland
passerines, and increase understanding and appreciation of wetland passerines and their habitat requirements in Maine.
Population objective: Identify and prioritize species of
conservation concern by 2002, determine population
trends for these species in Maine by 2009, and develop
population objectives for all at-risk species by 2010
(objectives likely will be drafted well in advance of this
date, but this timetable allows for collection of preliminary population trend data and sufficient time for
Northeast PIF Working Group to draft these objectives
for the northeast region and step them down to the state
scale).
Habitat objective 1: By 2017, increase the area of
upland buffers of salt-marsh habitat in conservation
status by 10,000 ha, with at least 4,000 ha in York,
Cumberland, and Sagadahoc Counties.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 2005
214
Achieving Implementation via State Agencies - Hodgman
Habitat objective 2: Prioritize peatlands by size, and by
2017 increase the area in conservation status for peatlands
by 12,000 ha and adjacent buffers by 24,000 ha.
Habitat objective 3: Identify and prioritize forest
riparian and emergent wetland habitats by 2002, and
conserve habitat for passerines of forest riparian areas
and emergent wetlands at 5 priority sites by 2004 and
at 20 additional priority sites by 2017.
Outreach objective: By 2005, develop and begin implementing an outreach program that increases the understanding and appreciation of wetland passerines and
their habitat requirements in Maine.
Case study: wetland passerines—population
objective
Criterion A: Have all species been assessed?
An affirmative response will require that all appropriate prioritization lists (see Management Action I)
have been reviewed to determine if any of the species
in this group are listed.
Criterion B: Are reliable population trend data available for all priority species?
An affirmative response will require statistically reliable trend estimates based on BBS data for Maine.
Decision Criteria Identify Management
Actions
Despite attempts to be concise, stakeholder-derived
objectives may contain multiple tasks within a single
objective. Each objective, therefore, may need to be
broken into its component parts. I used these components as decision criteria. Individual components are
more manageable than the entire objective and should
set temporal bounds within an annual workplan.
Decision criteria, when written as a question, lend
themselves to yes/no responses suitable for a decision
matrix or flowchart (fig. 1). Criteria tell exactly what is
required for a positive response. They may also contain
rules of thumb which identify the quantitative assumptions affecting a positive response.
Start
Criterion A
Is this species
considered a priority?
No
I. Species
Ranking
Rule of thumb: Trend estimates from the BBS
must be based on at least 14 routes with P < 0.10
from the most recent half of the BBS period (i.e.,
currently 1980 to 2002) to be considered reliable.
Criterion C: Have population objectives been determined for all priority species?
An affirmative response is only possible with assistance from a public stakeholder group with input from
Northeast PIF Working Group.
Management Actions Accomplish
Objectives
Management actions result from responses to decision
criteria and identify exactly what will be done, who
will do it, and when it needs to be completed. This is
an excellent place to re-engage stakeholders in dividing
up the tasks necessary to accomplish objectives. The
use of volunteer monitors, for example, may be easier
to deploy for some stakeholders than others.
Case study: Wetland passerines - management
actions
Yes
Criterion B
No
Are pop. trend estimates
reliable for each priority
species?
II. Improve
Monitoring
I.
1.
Yes
Criterion C
Have pop. objectives
been developed for
each priority species?
Species Ranking
No
III. Set Pop.
Objectives
Yes
IV. Reconvene
Stakeholders
Species will be considered a priority and thus
addressed by this management system, if species
is
a.
Recognized by Partners in Flight as a
continental- or regional-level priority (see
Rosenberg and Wells, this volume) for
either the northern spruce hardwood forest,
northern New England, or southern New
England physiographic areas, or,
b.
Listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
as a bird of conservation concern in Region
V, or,
Figure 1— Flow of implementation steps for addressing
the population objective and leading to management
actions.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 2005
215
Achieving Implementation via State Agencies - Hodgman
c.
Considered by MDIFW to be a species of
special concern, or,
d.
If >5 percent of its global population occurs
in Maine.
II. Improve Monitoring
1.
If possible, improve BBS coverage by
a.
Encouraging long-term commitments by
current participants (e.g., to decrease downtime when routes are assigned to new
observers).
b.
Increasing total number of routes available
in Maine. This is not likely as the number of
routes was recently increased.
c.
Increasing actual participation among
currently assigned routes. Increase participation rate to >90 percent of assigned
routes run each year. Accomplish this by
x
x
2.
Sending letter to all observers thanking
them for their volunteer participation
and explaining the importance of BBS
data to monitoring species populations.
Making follow-up phone call to volunteers who have not run their assigned
route two or more times in the past five
years. Encourage these individuals to
resume survey or relinquish route to
another qualified individual.
Develop separate monitoring programs for
species not adequately monitored by the BBS if
they are recognized as a priority under Criterion
A. This will require additional volunteer support
and may be coordinated with Maine Audubon.
III. Set Population Objectives
1.
Convene stakeholders to establish population
objectives for priority species, based on
estimates provided by Northeast PIF Working
Group and others.
IV. Reconvene Stakeholders
1.
Develop new management system based on
accomplishments to date, existing trend data,
and revised goals and objectives.
Limitations
A well-crafted plan can be a great accomplishment, but
the plan is a waste of time and money if it is never
implemented. The above-described process is timeconsuming and requires organization and commitment by
the agency. Yet, the outcome should engage stakeholders
and inject the implementation process with enthusiasm
and a sense of ownership. Such detail as I describe is not
for everyone, but few agencies would not benefit by
adopting or adapting portions of this approach to their
operations. Commitment from agency administrators is
essential as well (Anderson and Hurley 1980), for if they
cannot support the objectives derived by stakeholders,
effective implementation may not take place.
Recognizing PIF objectives as a priority can be a
challenge given the many competing demands on agency
staff. It may be useful to show administrators how
participation by their state’s staff fits into regional
conservation efforts. Successes achieved by flyway technical committees for waterfowl conservation (e.g.,
regional coordination in setting bag limits, subcommittees
made up of agency personnel focused on conservation of
a single species or group of species) can serve as an
excellent model for an agency. Education of upper
administrators by regional (nongame) technical committees or within administrator’s organizations themselves
probably has been significant in the Northeast.
The approach that I have described is not without
shortcomings. The case study was based just on wetland
passerines, with other systems developed for forest,
shrubland, and grassland species. Hypothetically, other
systems would focus on waterfowl, wading birds, and so
forth, and, ultimately, objectives could conflict with one
another. An integrated system might overcome the
taxonomic-based process that I described and that was
discussed by the stakeholder group. Furthermore, the
management actions are not prioritized nor has a cost
estimate been placed on implementing them. This latter
step, too, could assist some agencies in further deciding
which actions to take first.
Finally, the PIF physiographic plans were used as supporting materials, to bring stakeholders up to speed on
bird conservation priorities. Stakeholders did not
critique nor modify the PIF plans, and some could
argue that the PIF plans should be developed with
greater consensus from all partners, thus alleviating the
need for this state-based approach. I would suggest,
however, that many states, at least in the Northeast,
would prefer to build consensus themselves within
their states, with the partner organizations that they
work with on a daily basis. The state PIF working
group is an obvious place where this could take place,
but only if it has standing with agency administrators.
To date, the stakeholder group that I worked with has not
set population objectives because Northeast PIF has only
recently refined state level objectives. At a future
stakeholder meeting, I believe the PIF population
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 2005
216
Achieving Implementation via State Agencies - Hodgman
objectives, at least for priority species, could be reviewed
and incorporated into a revised management system. As
Donovan et al. (1999) suggested, a plan should be
reviewed annually and significant revisions made at
intervals of 5 years with full rewrite and reconvening of
stakeholders at no greater than 15-year intervals.
Conclusions
Avian conservation, like many other aspects of resource
management is most effective when all parties agree on a
common conservation goal and how to reach that desired
end point. Unfortunately, this terminus, and the path
leading to it, often are not clearly identified, and all too
often are not well articulated among stakeholders. Either
situation can result in conflict and ultimately in the failure
to achieve meaningful conservation. Furthermore, the
needs for landbird conservation far outnumber the funds
available to address them at this time. As such, efficient
methods for prioritizing and sharing the duties of
implementation are needed. To its benefit, PIF initiative is
replete with priority setting. But, broad consensus
between and within states is still needed and, if successfully built, would focus all state-based stakeholders (e.g.,
agencies, state chapters of Audubon and The Nature
Conservancy, and so forth) in a unified direction as well
as give them a sense of ownership of the process and in its
success.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan often
has been cited as a model for implementing migratory
bird conservation (e.g., Mueller et al. 1999). The success
of the Waterfowl Management Plan is a result of much
hard work by many individuals over many years. Much of
that success stems from the commitment by state and
provincial agencies to achieve the objectives of the plan
and through the teamwork or consensus facilitated
through the various Joint Ventures, and, of course, a
source of funding though the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (NAWCA).
As a state biologist, I can attest that the commitment by
my agency in terms of staff time devoted to wetland acquisition, habitat improvement, and waterfowl monitoring
appears pervasive, and by any objective measure is literally part of agency culture. For PIF to approach the same
degree of success, parallel conditions should be in place.
An upland equivalent to NAWCA or deeper funding of
the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act is an
obvious prerequisite. Perhaps if PIF conservation plans
are in some way included in state comprehensive wildlife
conservation plans, over time we will begin to see greater
implementation by states. However, agency commitment
at all levels and participation by federal partners and nongovernmental organizations alike, as well as their
constituents, will be critical in both a shared vision of
what needs to be accomplished (gathered through stake-
holder meetings) and in sharing the load of conducting
conservation activities.
Acknowledgments
The case study presented here resulted from actual
stakeholder meetings held during summer and fall
2000. I’d like to thank all the organizations and
individuals who participated in that series of discussions. Comments of G. J. Matula, Jr. were instrumental
in revising the draft management system. S. L. Ritchie
and R. B. Allen also helped guide me through the process. S. L. Ritchie, K. V. Rosenberg, and an anonymous
reviewer critically reviewed drafts of an earlier
manuscript.
Literature Cited
Anderson, K. H., and F. B. Hurley, Jr. 1980. Wildlife program
planning. In: S. D Schemnitz, editor. Wildlife management
techniques manual. 4th ed. Washington, DC: The Wildlife
Society; 455-471.
Biessinger, S. R., J. M. Reed, J. M. Wunderle, Jr., S. K.
Robinson, and D. M. Finch. 2000. Report of the AOU
conservation committee on the Partners in Flight species
prioritization plan. The Auk 117(2): 549-561.
Carter, M. F., W. C. Hunter, D. N. Pashley, and K. V.
Rosenberg. 2000. Setting conservation priorities for
landbirds in the United States: The Partners in Flight
approach. The Auk 117(2): 541-548.
Donovan, T. M., K. E. Freemark, B. A. Maurer, L. J. Petit, S. K.
Robinson, and V. A. Saab. 1999. Setting local and regional objectives for the persistence of bird populations. In:
R. Bonney, D. N. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles,
editors. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in
Flight planning process. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of
Ornithology. See http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay. Last
accessed April 12, 2004.
Droege, S. 1993. Monitoring neotropical migrants on managed lands: When, where, why. In: D. M. Finch and P. W.
Stangel, editors. Status and management of neotropical
migratory birds; 1992 September 21-25; Estes Park, CO.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 189-191.
Hodgman, T. P. 1998. Passerine assessment. Bangor: Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; 206 p.
Available from Wildlife Division, 650 State St., Bangor,
ME 04401.
Matula, G. J., Jr. 1988. Documentation of wildlife management
systems. Bangor: Maine Department of Inland Fisheries
and Wildlife. 8 p. Available from Wildlife Division, 650
State St., Bangor, ME 04401.
Mueller, A. J., D. J. Twedt, K. Tripp, W. C. Hunter, and M. S.
Woodrey. 1999. Development of management objectives
for breeding birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. In:
R. Bonney, D. N. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles,
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 2005
217
Achieving Implementation via State Agencies - Hodgman
editors. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in
Flight planning process. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of
Ornithology. See http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay. Last
accessed April 12, 2004.
Pashley, D. N., C. J. Beardmore, J. A. Fitzgerald, R. P. Ford, W.
C. Hunter, M. S. Morrison, and K. V. Rosenberg. 2000.
Partners in Flight: Conservation of the landbirds of the
United States. The Plains, VA: American Bird
Conservancy; 92 p. Available from American Bird
Conservancy, P.O. Box 249, 4249 Loudoun Ave, The
Plains, VA 20198.
Rosenberg, K. V., and J. V. Wells. This volume. Conservation
priorities for terrestrial birds in the northeastern United
States.
Smith, C. R., D. M. Pence, and R. J. O’Connor. 1993. Status of
neotropical migratory birds in the northeast: A
preliminary assessment. In: D. M. Finch and P. W.
Stangel, editors. Status and management of neotropical
migratory birds; 1992 September 21-25; Estes Park, CO.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 172-188.
Therres, G. D. 1993. Integrating management of forest
interior migratory birds with game in the northeast. In:
D. M. Finch and P. W. Stangel, editors. Status and
management of neotropical migratory birds; 1992
September 21-25; Estes Park, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM229. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture; 402-407.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 2005
218